Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

[Pertinacious Tom]

Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Gun nutters say no

 

[Raz'r]

does Publius mean never having an opinion?

 

[Guest]

What I thought most interesting about that was that the decision was sent back down to the lower court and told to actually follow Heller as they reconsidered it and there were no dissents from the SCOTUS. I think Alito is correct in that they are "grudgingly" beginning to accept that Heller was actually pretty well thought out and was unlikely to be overturned.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What I thought most interesting about that was that the decision was sent back down to the lower court and told to actually follow Heller as they reconsidered it and there were no dissents from the SCOTUS. I think Alito is correct in that they are "grudgingly" beginning to accept that Heller was actually pretty well thought out and was unlikely to be overturned.

Reminds me of the court sending US v Stewart back to the 9th for them to reconsider in light of Gonzalez vs Raich. The reconsideration was a formality as the conclusion in light of Raich was obvious: homegrown machine guns for personal use are not that different from homegrown cannabis plants for personal use.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I'm glad the court has unanimously discarded the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

I thought Scalia far too charitable when he call that argument "bordering on frivolous" in the Heller opinion. It clearly jumped way past that border.

Got an opinion on that, Raz'r, or is this like the question of whether "freedom of the press" applies to press corporations and just too tough to answer directly?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The author of the Slate article in the topic link called the prosecution "inexplicable" and the behavior of government "idiotic" in this case.

It gets a lot easier to explain if you recognize the animus against self-defense that exists among American hoplophobes.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

This article comments on the concurring opinion by Alito, joined by Thomas.

No member of the Supreme Court dissented from today's per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts. However, Justice Sameuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he left little doubt that if it were up to him (and Thomas), the state's actions would have been ruled flatly unconstitutional.

"The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself," Alito wrote. "To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds." According to Alito, "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe."

Alito is right and the bolded bit is the explanation for a situation that the Slate article author found "inexplicable."

I guess joining Alito demostrates Justice Thomas' hostility toward women.

 

[Raz'r]

I'm glad the court has unanimously discarded the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

I thought Scalia far too charitable when he call that argument "bordering on frivolous" in the Heller opinion. It clearly jumped way past that border.

Got an opinion on that, Raz'r, or is this like the question of whether "freedom of the press" applies to press corporations and just too tough to answer directly?

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

 

[Vgree]

I have to say this ruling surprises me in a good way. I hope to see the supreme court continue to rule in favor of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I'm glad the court has unanimously discarded the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

I thought Scalia far too charitable when he call that argument "bordering on frivolous" in the Heller opinion. It clearly jumped way past that border.

Got an opinion on that, Raz'r, or is this like the question of whether "freedom of the press" applies to press corporations and just too tough to answer directly?

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

On the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written?

Do you think that Scalia was right that that notion borders on frivolous, or do you agree with me that it jumped that border?

Bonus question: do you believe that "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment applies to groups or just individuals?

 

[Raz'r]

I'm glad the court has unanimously discarded the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

I thought Scalia far too charitable when he call that argument "bordering on frivolous" in the Heller opinion. It clearly jumped way past that border.

Got an opinion on that, Raz'r, or is this like the question of whether "freedom of the press" applies to press corporations and just too tough to answer directly?

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

On the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written? No edit to add: my thoughts are irrelevant. The Supremes are very clear on the question.

Do you think that Scalia was right that that notion borders on frivolous, or do you agree with me that it jumped that border? What notion? Canada or the US border? What? Scalia's still dead, right?

Bonus question: do you believe that "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment applies to groups or just individuals? That's a poorly written question that has no reasonable answer.

One has to be very careful when responding to a Publius.

 

[sharkbait1]

I'm glad the court has unanimously discarded the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

I thought Scalia far too charitable when he call that argument "bordering on frivolous" in the Heller opinion. It clearly jumped way past that border.

Got an opinion on that, Raz'r, or is this like the question of whether "freedom of the press" applies to press corporations and just too tough to answer directly?

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

On the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written?

Do you think that Scalia was right that that notion borders on frivolous, or do you agree with me that it jumped that border?

Bonus question: do you believe that "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment applies to groups or just individuals?

Those questions are direct. Raz'r ????

 

[sharkbait1]

I'm glad the court has unanimously discarded the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

I thought Scalia far too charitable when he call that argument "bordering on frivolous" in the Heller opinion. It clearly jumped way past that border.

Got an opinion on that, Raz'r, or is this like the question of whether "freedom of the press" applies to press corporations and just too tough to answer directly?

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

On the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written? No

Do you think that Scalia was right that that notion borders on frivolous, or do you agree with me that it jumped that border? What notion? Canada or the US border? What? Scalia's still dead, right?

Bonus question: do you believe that "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment applies to groups or just individuals? That's a poorly written question that has no reasonable answer.

One has to be very careful when responding to a Publius.

Evasion at best

 

[Raz'r]

I'm glad the court has unanimously discarded the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

I thought Scalia far too charitable when he call that argument "bordering on frivolous" in the Heller opinion. It clearly jumped way past that border.

Got an opinion on that, Raz'r, or is this like the question of whether "freedom of the press" applies to press corporations and just too tough to answer directly?

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

On the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written? No

Do you think that Scalia was right that that notion borders on frivolous, or do you agree with me that it jumped that border? What notion? Canada or the US border? What? Scalia's still dead, right?

Bonus question: do you believe that "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment applies to groups or just individuals? That's a poorly written question that has no reasonable answer.

One has to be very careful when responding to a Publius.

Evasion at best

I thought "No" was pretty direct.

the other questions are bogus.

 

[LB 15]

What I thought most interesting about that was that the decision was sent back down to the lower court and told to actually follow Heller as they reconsidered it and there were no dissents from the SCOTUS. I think Alito is correct in that they are "grudgingly" beginning to accept that Heller was actually pretty well thought out and was unlikely to be overturned.

Reminds me of the court sending US v Stewart back to the 9th for them to reconsider in light of Gonzalez vs Raich. The reconsideration was a formality as the conclusion in light of Raich was obvious: homegrown machine guns for personal use are not that different from homegrown cannabis plants for personal use.

But Tom there would be no background checks on people growing their on pot. What if one of them had a brain snap, grabbed some of their stash and went to the mall. Hundreds of innocent bystanders could get stoned. At least people with home made machine guns are only likely to harm themselves.

 

[LB 15]

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written?

No of course not. These were smart people who could see the future. They would have known that the Internet, wide spread drug problems and guns that could shoot 35 bullets a second were all coming and wrote the amendments accordingly. What they couldn't have foreseen were how many gun loving, stoners like yourself would spend so much time on the Internet claiming you knew what they were thinking. You realise that when your hero mr Trump becomes your President someone from the gun lobby will piss him off about something and because he is a ego fuelled bully, he will confiscate ever gun in the land.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

On the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written? No edit to add: my thoughts are irrelevant. The Supremes are very clear on the question.

Do you think that Scalia was right that that notion borders on frivolous, or do you agree with me that it jumped that border? What notion? Canada or the US border? What? Scalia's still dead, right?

Bonus question: do you believe that "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment applies to groups or just individuals? That's a poorly written question that has no reasonable answer.

One has to be very careful when responding to a Publius.

One out of three isn't bad. I thought the first sentence made it pretty clear which notion we were talking about and am not surprised that you still can't give a direct answer to whether freedom of the press applies to entities like the NY Times. It's a hard question from your point of view.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What I thought most interesting about that was that the decision was sent back down to the lower court and told to actually follow Heller as they reconsidered it and there were no dissents from the SCOTUS. I think Alito is correct in that they are "grudgingly" beginning to accept that Heller was actually pretty well thought out and was unlikely to be overturned.

Reminds me of the court sending US v Stewart back to the 9th for them to reconsider in light of Gonzalez vs Raich. The reconsideration was a formality as the conclusion in light of Raich was obvious: homegrown machine guns for personal use are not that different from homegrown cannabis plants for personal use.

But Tom there would be no background checks on people growing their on pot. What if one of them had a brain snap, grabbed some of their stash and went to the mall. Hundreds of innocent bystanders could get stoned.At least people with home made machine guns are only likely to harm themselves.

Tell it to the court. They're the ones who found that the two were similar enough that one should be decided in light of the other.

 

[Raz'r]

Do I have an opinion on what? Maybe you could ask a direct question?

On the notion that the second amendment, unlike any others, only applies to technology available at the time it was written.

Do you think that the second amendment only applies to technologies in existence when it was written? No edit to add: my thoughts are irrelevant. The Supremes are very clear on the question.

Do you think that Scalia was right that that notion borders on frivolous, or do you agree with me that it jumped that border? What notion? Canada or the US border? What? Scalia's still dead, right?

Bonus question: do you believe that "freedom of the press" mentioned in the first amendment applies to groups or just individuals? That's a poorly written question that has no reasonable answer.

One has to be very careful when responding to a Publius.

One out of three isn't bad. I thought the first sentence made it pretty clear which notion we were talking about and am not surprised that you still can't give a direct answer to whether freedom of the press applies to entities like the NY Times. It's a hard question from your point of view.

it's a hard question to compare apples to horse-driven carriages.

There is no "freedom of speech" law. There are 200+ years worth of laws that have been found constitutional regarding speech, some are aimed at individuals, others at groups of individuals i.e. Corporations.

It's a stupid question. Sorry life doesn't work in 20 second soundbites.